The Roundtable
Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.
 By Derek Willie
Derek Willie is a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania. On September 8th, 2015, while thousands of Christians in Iraq remain in perpetual persecution, poised to die at the hands of Islamic State extremists, American conservatives coronated Kim Davis as a martyr of the movement to stop, what they allege to be, the criminalization of Christianity in the United States. Mike Huckabee, quite obviously attempting to appear as Davis’s loyal spiritual guardian and worthy presidential candidate, romantically offered to go jail in her place, arguing that Davis was persecuted for her religious opposition to same-sex marriage. [1] Davis was not forced to marry a woman, nor was she commanded to officiate a same-sex wedding or to attend a church where same-sex marriage is not condemned as an abomination; she was simply asked, by the Supreme Court, to obey the law of the land and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. When she refused, she was held in contempt of court and sent to jail, the legal response to anyone defying a court order. [2] Regardless of the court’s order and the subsequent issuance of same-sex marriage licenses in Rowan County, there lies a critical legal question in Ms. Davis’s claim that her religious beliefs forbid her from executing the law through her office as county clerk. Does the first amendment’s free exercise clause protect Kim Davis from incarceration or forced resignation if issuing licenses for same-sex marriage truly does violate her religious conscience?
0 Comments
 By Derek Willie
Derek Willie is a rising freshman at the University of Pennsylvania. “If you’re getting high in Colorado today, enjoy it. As of January 2017, I will enforce the federal laws.” So pledged New Jersey Governor and Republican presidential hopeful Chris Christie as he delivered a blunt reproach of Colorado’s legalization of recreational marijuana in his typically straightforward manner. [1] The prospects of Christie winning the presidency in November 2016 are slim, yet his harsh edict, albeit premature, is a sobering reminder that as the Obama presidency ends, so does his administration’s treatment of marijuana as a mostly benign “vice.” [2]  By Derek Willie
Derek Willie is a rising freshman at the University of Pennsylvania. After years of political frenzy, the 2010 BP oil spill, the largest and most devastating oil spill in American history, has seemingly become a relic of the recent past. While it initially elicited transient fury from American environmentalists, awkward apologies from corporate sympathizers, and a few flagrantly inappropriate jeers of “drill baby drill” from fiery tea-partiers, the BP spill, and the resultant penalty for the oil giant, soon became mired in lengthy, complex legal battles with no end in sight. Accordingly, news of BP’s $18.7 billion settlement with the federal government and five gulf states that broke in early July evoked quiet feelings of relief and closure even among once vociferous commentators, culminating in a seemingly insignificant conclusion to a conflict that initially seemed bound to change the course of American energy and regulatory policy. [1] Still, many view the putatively massive settlement as a tremendous success. The New York Times lauds the environmental benefits of the deal, noting that it will “provide a significant, continuing source of revenue for the repair and restoration of the Gulf of Mexico’s marshes, barrier islands, fisheries, deep-sea corals and other vulnerable elements of an ecosystem that had been ailing long before the spill.” [2] From a legal perspective, the deal concludes costly litigation that could have feasibly continued well into the next decade, as details of government negotiations remain confidential. [3] Even so, BP estimates that it will have paid an aggregate sum of almost $54 billion for the spill, a hefty price that the Times believes constitutes “a deterrent to careless behavior.” [4] The Washington Post agreed, arguing that the settlement’s terms are in accordance with President Obama’s post-spill objective of “demand[ing] accountability from BP without bankrupting the company” and praising the deal as “a milestone for the environment.” [5] |
|
|